This article on Canada’s Deferred Prosecution Agreement or Remediation Agreement will discuss its pros and cons and the process behind it
Updated December 01, 2023
The world of corporate Canada is not beyond reach by the law.
When public interest is involved, the law provides them with an opportunity to come clean for the offences happening within their structure. This is what a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) is for.
Given that it was introduced in Canada with a rocky start, how do DPAs fit in the country’s criminal justice system?
A deferred prosecution agreement, also called remediation agreement, is an understanding between government prosecutors and the corporation accused of certain crimes.
Under a DPA, prosecution of the accused corporation will be suspended for a definite period and subject to certain conditions provided in the DPA.
If the accused corporation has faithfully complied with the DPA’s terms and conditions, the criminal charges against them will be dropped. Otherwise, these charges will be revived, and prosecution will continue.
Some of the countries that have DPAs in their jurisdictions are the USA, UK, Australia, and France. During the process of public consultations by the government, Canada used the UK’s DPA regime as its framework.
Deferred prosecution agreement in Canada is in Part XXII.1 of the federal Criminal Code, which refers to DPAs as “Remediation Agreements”.
As defined by the Criminal Code, a Remediation Agreement is “between an organization accused of having committed an offence and a prosecutor”. Its effect is to “stay any proceedings related to that offence if the organization complies with the terms of the agreement”.
In other words, the halting of the proceedings against an organization based on a deferred prosecution agreement or a remediation agreement is based on the organization’s compliance with its terms.
#Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou and #US Department of Justice reached a deferred prosecution agreement that Meng will not be prosecuted further in US and the extradition proceedings in #Canada will be terminated under which Meng has not pleaded guilty: lawyerpic.twitter.com/TshPwxpy6t
— Global Times (@globaltimesnews) September 24, 2021
Canada has a recent case of deferred prosecution agreement, its second so far.
DPAs or remediation agreements were formally enacted into Canadian law after the amendments of the federal Criminal Code. These amendments were done through Bill C-74.
In 2017, Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) led consultations for implementing deferred prosecution agreements in the country. PSPC released its report in 2018.
Bill C-74, an omnibus budget legislation, was then introduced in 2018. The Bill included, among others, the amendments to the Criminal Code to introduce DPAs. Although it drew flak, the Bill was passed in 2018. It received Royal Assent and came into effect in the same year.
Under the Criminal Code, the objectives behind DPAs or remediation agreements are:
“[DPAs are] an efficient way of resolving these kinds of cases, and perhaps another spin on plea bargaining. But it’s the kind of arrangement that other jurisdictions certainly have had success with, and a model that would be very useful in Canada,” says Linda Fuerst, a senior partner at Norton Rose Fulbright LLP in Toronto.
When used effectively, DPAs or remediation agreements offer various advantages when it comes to deterrence and prosecution of organizational crimes:
Deferred prosecution agreements can offer an incentive to companies to come forward after discovering bribery and kickback schemes under their roof, says Kenneth Jull, counsel at Gardiner Roberts LLP.
A deferred prosecution agreement offers a haven though not a free pass, notes Jull; there will be significant fines to pay and possibly monitors, but “it’s a better incentive to come in from the cold.”
However, the use of DPAs or remediation agreements also has some disadvantages:
“A corporate entity that decides to self-report will still have to weigh the reality that self-reporting may still result in a very public prosecution,” says Joven Narwal, a Vancouver litigator.
“The solution to that is the development of deferred prosecution agreements outside of formal remediation agreements under the Criminal Code.”
Only organizations as defined under Canada’s Criminal Code can use deferred prosecution agreements or remediation agreements. These organizations include:
However, the following organizations are excluded by the Code:
The Schedule to Part XXII.1 of the Criminal Code has a list of crimes where a remediation agreement or a DPA might be an option:
In addition are the following acts in relation to the above-listed crimes:
The process and conditions of a deferred prosecution agreement or remediation agreement in Canada are regulated by the Criminal Code.
This will involve numerous parties, such as the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC), the organization that committed the offence or crime, and its victims.
It is the prosecution that decides whether an accused qualifies for the deferred prosecution agreement.
For this reason, the Criminal Code has set out certain conditions to guide prosecutors in making this decision:
The Criminal Code lists factors to help prosecutors decide if a deferred prosecution agreement is in the public interest:
Another factor is whether the organization:
In addition, prosecutors may consider other factors that they deem relevant in deciding whether a case meets the public interest requirement.
Below is the process in negotiating and finalizing deferred prosecution agreements in Canada:
If there’s a breach of the DPA, the court will terminate the agreement. Prosecution will proceed.
If the terms of the DPA are met, the prosecutor applies to the court for the DPA’s completion. This will end the criminal proceedings.
Under the Criminal Code, the terms and conditions of a remediation agreement or deferred prosecution agreement in Canada may either be mandatory or optional:
Canada’s first deferred prosecution agreement involved SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. (now rebranded as AtkinsRéalis as of 2023).
In 2019, a political scandal involving SNC-Lavalin arose. A prominent Québec construction company, SNC-Lavalin was accused of bribing Libyan officials. There were also allegations that it defrauded Libyan organizations. The formal charges were filed in 2015.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet were also involved in that controversy. According to the report of the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Trudeau was found to have influenced Jody Wilson-Raybould, who was then the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
Trudeau allegedly wanted Wilson-Raybould to offer SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement. Wilson-Raybould later resigned from the cabinet and quit politics.
As for SNC-Lavalin, a DPA was more advantageous for the company since it could evade prosecution of the crimes it allegedly committed.
By the end of 2019, SNC-Lavalin had neither gone to trial nor received a DPA. As SNC-Lavalin pleaded guilty to fraud under the Criminal Code, the company and the PPSC reached an agreement for the company to pay a $280-million fine.
In return, federal prosecutors dropped the remaining charges against the company. In effect, this allowed the company to continue bidding on public contracts in Canada after its rebranding in 2023.
Interested in more deep dives into aspects of criminal law? Head over and bookmark our page on Criminal practice area to find articles on Canada’s criminal laws and actual cases.
Do you think that deferred prosecution agreements would benefit Canada? Let us know in the comments.